[2025:RJ-JP:46816]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2^nd Bail Application No. 14972/2025 Gaurav @ Gaurkha S/o Shri Jayram, Aged About 25 Years, R/o 447B Waed No.110 Bharat Nagar, Near Of Gangaram Hospital Meel Gate Hisar Ps HTM Hisar District Hisar (Accused is in Judicial Custody in District Jail Kotputali).

----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Gupta, Adv. with Ms. Sweta Soni, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. NS Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

Order

19/11/2025

1. The instant second application for bail under Section 483 BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner herein who has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 117/2025 registered at Police Station Kotputali, District Kotputali Behror for offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2) & 109(1) of BNS. After completion of investigation, charge sheet for offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 118(1) & 103(1) of BNS and Section 4/25 of Arms Act has been filed by the investigating agency in the court concerned.

2. The first bail application preferred by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 28.08.2025 with liberty to file afresh after examination of the key witnesses i.e. Dayaram, brother of the deceased and an alleged eye-witness; Medical Expert, who conducted the postmortem of the deceased;

and the Doctor, who initially prepared the MLC of the deceased.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid witnesses, apart from other material prosecution witnesses, have now been examined before the trial court as PW-1 to PW-3. Hence, the present second bail application has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner.

4. It is contended that a perusal of the testimony of the so- called eye-witness as well as the material collected during investigation, reflected in the charge sheet, reveals that the entire case has falsely been concocted against the petitioner. Counsel highlights that the FIR itself was lodged five days after the alleged incident and notably does not contain the petitioner’s name. Learned counsel further emphasizes that it is highly suspicious that the petitioner’s name surfaced abruptly the very next day in the complainant’s subsequent statement reordered under section 180 of BNSS (161 Cr.P.C.), wherein it was additionally alleged that a woman was seated in the vehicle, in which the assailant fled and that she had shouted, “Gaurav, what have you done?” at the time of the incident. Counsel stresses that the FIR makes no mention whatsoever of any woman being present at the scene, thereby casting further doubt on the prosecution’s version. Learned counsel contends that from the charge sheet, the petitioner was arrested on 08.03.2025 and the alleged recovery of the knife (the purported weapon of offence) was effected on 13.03.2025 at his instance. This, he says, is wholly unreliable and bereft of evidentiary value since it was made twenty-two days after the incident, during which period the petitioner allegedly had ample opportunity to destroy or conceal the weapon. It is argued that no prudent person would retain such incriminating evidence for such a long period of time, which further weakens the prosecution's claim.

5. It is further contended that the test identification parade (for short “TIP”) held in respect of the petitioner is rendered meaningless, as the petitioner had already been shown to the witness at the police station before holding the TIP, thus vitiating its sanctity. Counsel contends that even at the time of his testimony during the trial, the complainant has not stated that the petitioner has committed the offence, which is the basic mode of identification in criminal law. Counsel argues that in a case where the accused is a stranger to the witness, the dock identification assumes significant importance; and it is necessary for the witness to state that the person in th